[Foundation-l] Conflict resolution on meta Wikimedia

Thu Feb 24 20:46:38 UTC 2005

Rowan Collins wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:04:40 +0100, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>  
>
>>Hoi,
>>First of all, The current version is not sufficient. It does not address
>>any of the concerns that I have about this thing. 
>>    
>>
>
>No, but it does state *why* it doesn't address them, and point to
>another page reserved specifically *for* addressing them.
>  
>
Which is where they do not justify their own proposal. So in essence it 
is just a move to rid themselves of what they see as off topic.

>  
>
>>This whole proposal is about introducing censorship into the wikimedia
>>projects and it should be introduced into the Mediawiki software itself.
>>    
>>
>
>"...should be introduced"? I see only a discussion of how it *could*
>be implemented. That is what my extra sentence was trying to make
>clear.
>
>  
>
My mistake, it is not my mother language :)

>>[...] The arguments about this are
>>hiden in a discussion that was held on the en:wikipedia mailing list.
>>All stuff that is in opposition to this proposal is moved away to a
>>place that does not even discuss why this idea would be proper.
>>    
>>
>
>Your second sentence contradicts your first (they're not hidden away,
>they've been moved to a page you're not satisfied with). *So use that
>place to discuss those issues.* Christiaan et al have stated that the
>particular page in question is not intended to cover those issues, and
>I don't think the fact that one debate is separated into 2 pages, each
>covering a well-defined aspect, is "hiding" or "denying" anything;
>it's separating it.
>  
>
The discussion was moved from the talk page. It is now out of contex as 
the stuff it reacts to is not there. The argument is, that this reflects 
what was discussed on the en:wikipedia mailing list. They have not given 
the arguments in there and use it as justification for their proposal 
for this censoring mechanism.

>Clearly, both sides have strong opinions on this, but if people want
>to explore the technical possibilities *at the same time as* the
>desirability, then who are you to stop them?
>
>The statement I added, making clear that this was *not* a "fait
>accompli", and was *not* actively in development, and would *not* be
>carried through without discussion of its desirability, seems to be
>approved by the authors/backers of that page, and so presumably
>reflects their own claim.
>
>Do you not believe them? Because if you *do* believe them, then you
>should be able to carry on making the case for the undesirability, and
>ignore their technical musings in the hope [or, indeed, belief] that
>such will have been a waste of time once you have presented a
>well-argued and coherent case why it would be a bad idea to try.
>
What is there to believe. I can believe that they assume that this will 
be all the censorship we will have. I do believe that this is the 
beginning of the end of a free encyclopeida that aims tp contain all 
knowledge. They will say that this is a straw mans argument. :(

So what is there but frustration. Frustration for seeing that censorship 
is being pushed. The worst thing is that I can see them get this 
censorship thing into Mediawiki because there is always someone capable 
and willing of coding this.

Thanks,
    No thanks !
        GerardM